tag:www.patrickmcnallylegal.com,2013-03-21:/blog/807952018-07-30T09:48:18ZMovable Type Enterprisetag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.33714372018-07-30T16:00:00Z2018-07-30T09:48:18Z
When it comes to blood-spatter analysis, "expert" witnesses for the prosecution are often law enforcement officers with just a week of training. This was so in the case of Joe B., a high school principal accused of murdering his wife. He was convicted in 1985 based on flecks of blood on a flashlight found in his car, which a detective convinced a jury came from his wife. Now, the Texas Forensic Science Commission has concluded that the analysis was "not accurate or scientifically supported" and, in fact, "entirely wrong."

The case occurred in 1985, before DNA analysis was available. Joe is asking for those blood flecks to be tested for his wife's DNA. He has always maintained his innocence and hopes the analysis will result in a new trial after nearly 30 years.

]]>
Joe's case has been the subject of two joint investigations by ProPublica and the New York Times. In May, the reporters questioned the blood-spatter analysis, along with the training of prosecution witnesses who testify about blood spatter. This month, they covered the Texas Forensic Science Commission's findings. An evidentiary hearing is taking place in August, which may lead to an order for DNA testing or for a new trial.

According to the reporters, the blood-speckled flashlight was crucial to the prosecution's case, but its connection to the murder is unclear. The prosecution theorized that the blood on the flashlight belonged to Joe's wife and, since the flashlight was found in Joe's car, he must have been holding the flashlight at the time of the murder.

A police detective with 40 hours of training in bloodstain pattern analysis testified that the speckles on the flashlight were in a "back spatter" pattern, which indicates a close-range shooting.

A prominent bloodstain pattern expert has now re-examined the case on behalf of the Forensic Science Commission, however, and was highly critical of the detective's testimony. She pointed out several times he misstated scientific concepts and concluded that he used flawed methodology and incorrectly interpreted the evidence.

Based on over 60 hours of research and analysis, the expert determined that the detective's testimony was "egregiously wrong." Indeed, she found that the blood speckles of the flashlight were not consistent with a back-spatter event. The prosecution's theory now appears unsupported by the evidence.

"If any juror relied on any part of his testimony to render a verdict," she said, "[Joe B.] deserves a new trial."

The commission also found that other evidence in the case was overstated, presented by an unqualified witness, or had been entirely fabricated.

Should Joe B. get the DNA test he is seeking -- and ultimately a new trial?

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.33714362018-07-11T21:39:28Z2018-07-30T09:47:49Z
A federal judge has ruled that Tennessee's practice of revoking driver's licenses merely because defendants can't afford to pay court fines and fees. Since the law doesn't provide an exception for the indigent, it violates people's right to due process and equal protection under the law.

The case does not apply to license suspensions or revocations for cause, such as when defendants are convicted of DUI. It also doesn't affect jurisdictions outside Tennessee, even though about 40 states have similar laws. However, observers say the case could be a harbinger for reforms across the nation.

]]>
The case is considered a victory for advocates for the poor, who have long argued that these policies are not only discriminatory but also counterproductive. Rather than encouraging more people to pay their fines and fees, license suspension and revocation serve to lock impoverished people out of the workforce -- and any chance to pay those fines and fees.

Is it absolutely necessary to drive in order to work in Tennessee? According to evidence presented in the case, 93.4 percent of Tennessee's working residents drive to their jobs.

Driving on a suspended or revoked license is illegal, of course, and it can also make the problem worse. In Tennessee, a first offense of driving on a revoked license can mean a $500 fine and up to six months in jail. That goes up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine for a subsequent offense.

"Losing one's driver's license simultaneously makes the burdens of life more expensive and renders the prospect of amassing the resources needed to overcome those burdens more remote," reads the judge's decision.

Between July 2012 and June 2016, Tennessee revoked 146,211 driver's licenses because the defendants owed court debts. Only 7 percent were able to have their licenses reinstated over that period.

The case involved two men from Tennessee who are described as in "severe poverty." In one case, the man was convicted of trespassing for sheltering under a bridge when he was homeless. He was charged $289.70 in court costs, which he could not afford to pay. When he later applied for a driver's license, he was rejected because he hadn't paid off his debt.

The judge has ordered the state to reinstate the driver's licenses of all Tennessee drivers whose revocations are due merely to unpaid fines and fees. It's unclear exactly how many people the ruling will affect, as some people's licenses were revoked for cause, but the number could be over 100,000.

A similar lawsuit before the same judge alleges that some 25,000 Tennessee licenses have been unjustly revoked solely for unpaid traffic fines -- all without a non-monetary solution for indigent defendants.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.33714352018-06-28T18:15:09Z2018-07-30T09:47:15Z
Between June 25 and July 5, many Tennessee law enforcement agencies will be engaging in increased DUI enforcement surrounding Independence Day. The Tennessee Highway Safety Office provides funding for county sheriff's departments in concert with statewide and national messaging meant to reduce serious and fatal accidents involving drunk drivers.

You may notice more sobriety checkpoints along with high-visibility saturation enforcement until July 5.

]]>
"State and local law enforcement partners will be out in full force to secure Tennessee roadways," said one county sheriff. "We want everyone to make it home safely, so please designate a sober driver."

4th of July festivities can turn tragic without care

Americans love celebrating Independence Day with food, family and fireworks. Unfortunately, it's among the deadliest times of year for drunk driving crashes.

During the 2016 Fourth of July period (July 2 - July 6), 188 people were killed in crashes involving at least one driver or motorcyclist who was over the limit. That represented a 28 percent increase over the same period in 2015. Furthermore, almost half of those fatalities occurred in crashes involving at least one driver or motorcyclist with a blood alcohol content of 0.15 or higher.

Don't ruin your holiday with a DUI. In Tennessee, the penalties for first-offense drunk driving can include:

Between 48 hours and almost a year in jail (minimum 7 days for 0.20 or higher)

Do yourself a favor and arrange for a sober ride if you need to be out on the roads during the holiday.

Got a DUI while visiting Nashville?

If you're from out of state and have been charged with DUI, it's crucial to get experienced legal help right away. You can't afford to try navigating the court system on your own. An in-state defense attorney can help you get affordable bail and work to minimize the negative consequences of a DUI charge.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.33714342018-06-18T12:30:00Z2018-07-30T09:45:55Z
The 17th annual Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival in Manchester is only one of many fantastic music and cultural festivals in Tennessee that attract thousands of revelers from across the nation. While the festival is well worth the trip, some people end up having a negative experience. They end up arrested or cited for DUI, drug possession, assault or another crime.

This year, law enforcement groups patrolling the festival report arresting and cited at least 226 people -- a drop from last year's total. However, while citations were down significantly, arrests were up, according to the Coffee County Sheriff's Department. This year there were 45 arrests at Bonnaroo, up from 42 last year. Most of them involved drugs and alcohol.

]]>
On closing Sunday, according to the Tennessean, Coffee County Sheriff's deputies happened upon a rather large cache of festival drugs in a vehicle. Unfortunately for the vehicle's owners, police say that a bag of marijuana was in plain sight in the vehicle, which prompted a search.

Inside the vehicle, deputies allegedly discovered 21 grams of marijuana in seven bags, some marijuana gummies and some marijuana wax, along with:

Half a gram of Molly (MDMA)

2 ounces of ketamine in 56 bags

10 ounces of mushrooms packed in 60 bags

Seven bottles of LSD

1,100 hits of acid

3 Xanax pills

24 unidentified white pills

Drug paraphernalia

Approximately $7,900 in cash

To out-of-state individuals were arrested on multiple drug charges. Their bail was set at $39,500 each.

When you come to Tennessee for Bonnaroo, for another festival, or just to have a good time, the last thing you need is a hassle. If you end up being arrested for drug possession, possession with intent to sell, DUI or another alcohol offense, assault, or any crime, you owe it to yourself to contact a quality local criminal defense attorney.

Depending on the charge, you may not have to come back to Tennessee to deal with it. Your attorney may be able to appear on your behalf.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.33714332018-06-07T21:32:51Z2018-07-30T09:44:39Z
The U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed that police need to obtain a warrant to search the premises around someone's home, even if they think they have spotted stolen property there. They aren't allowed to take a quick peek and initiate a search based on what they see.

The case involved a stolen black and orange motorcycle. Its rider had managed to evade police in Virginia on two occasions. They tracked down the person they thought was the rider, so they went to his residence to take a look. As they had expected, a motorcycle was spotted under a tarp on the property. Was it black and orange? An officer entered the premises and moved the tarp to confirm that it was.

]]>
When the alleged rider arrived home, he was arrested and charged with receiving stolen property. He was ultimately convicted. On appeal, he challenged the search of the area around his home -- which is known as the curtilage -- as unconstitutional without a warrant. The prosecution argued that the police did not need a warrant because the search involved a vehicle.

There is indeed an "automobile exception" to the general requirement that police obtain warrants before searching. That exception allows police to search a vehicle if they notice evidence of a crime in plain sight. This exception is allowed essentially because vehicles are easily moved, so the evidence could disappear if police were required to get a warrant before searching.

However, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, the Supreme Court has always required a warrant when police enter private homes or the curtilage around them in order to perform a search. The majority ruled that the automobile exception does not apply when the vehicle is parked in a driveway or otherwise within the curtilage of the home. The case might have been resolved differently if the motorcycle had been parked on the street.

The rules for when police need warrants before searches are quite complex. In general, warrants are required most often when police propose searching a person's private home and curtilage. Exceptions to the warrant requirement, however, are allowed in many situations where time is of the essence.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.32964732018-05-21T16:22:18Z2018-06-06T01:00:43Z
Being arrested on a criminal charge is a frightening experience. If you've been arrested and then convicted it is considerably worse. When your time in court is said and done, and the judge has rendered a guilty verdict, it may be time for you to make an appeal.

When you've been found guilty of a criminal charge, an appeal is your second chance at freedom. Freedom from possible jail time, heavy fines, losing your license and many other penalties. It is important to understand that you are not guaranteed an appeal, and the appeal is not a completely new trial; it could be the second chance you need though.

]]>
When may you appeal?

You are not always entitled to an appeal solely because you were found guilty in trial court. To move to an appellate court, or court of appeals, there must be a legal basis to review the case. Every case is different, but common reasons you may appeal include:

If any of these apply to you, or think that an aspect of your trial was unlawful or inappropriate, speak to an experienced appellate attorney as soon as possible. You have constitutional rights that must be observed. Don't lose them due to an oversight.

How do appeals work?

Should you decide to appeal, your lawyer will file a "notice to appeal". You and your attorney will then have the opportunity to present a brief argument explaining your legal argument of why you deserve a second trial. The appellate court will decide whether or not these reasons are valid, and deny or grant you a second chance at your case.

Understand that if your appeal is granted, you are not being given a new trial or a retrial. By going to an appellate court, you are asserting that there were errors in your initial court trial which were responsible for your conviction. This is your chance to rectify these errors and potentially change the verdict.

Each case is different and you may not have the option to appeal your case should you be found guilty of a criminal charge. It does not hurt to speak to an attorney who specializes in appellate court, though. They may be the lifeline you need if you think that your case was mishandled.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.32964722018-05-18T22:29:43Z2018-06-06T01:00:43Z
When you're driving in your own car, the police can't just pull you over for no reason -- they need reasonable suspicion that you've committed an offense. Once they've stopped you, they need probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed before they can perform a full search of your vehicle. This is because the Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from performing unreasonable searches and seizures.

The same principle applies if you're driving a rental car, although that wasn't obvious to a Pennsylvania state trooper who pulled a man over in 2014. In that case, the driver wasn't listed on the rental agreement, so the trooper decided he had waived his Fourth Amendment rights.

]]>
The trooper, who had been on speed trap duty, pulled the man over because he thought the driver's seat was reclined too far. When he realized the driver wasn't listed on the rental agreement, the trooper performed a full search of the vehicle. In the trunk, he found heroin.

The car wasn't stolen; it had been rented by a friend on the driver's behalf and he seemed to be authorized to drive it. The trooper therefore did not have probable cause to believe a crime was occurring. That would seem to make a full search of the vehicle objectively unreasonable.

The heroin was nevertheless allowed into evidence and the defendant was convicted. The case was ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court has just ruled -- unanimously -- that the mere fact that the driver wasn't listed on the rental agreement had no effect on his Fourth Amendment rights.

"The court now holds that, as a general rule, someone in otherwise lawful possession and control of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it even if the rental agreement does not list him or her as an authorized driver," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the court.

The Supreme Court has sent the case back to the trial court, however, to determine whether the driver and his friend rented the car fraudulently. If they did, the driver may have essentially waived his Fourth Amendment rights after all.

That said, merely violating the rental agreement by allowing someone else to drive is not necessarily fraud. The court found there were plenty of innocent reasons a driver might not be listed on a rental agreement.

If you've rented a car, your Fourth Amendment rights are intact. According to the Supreme Court, you retain your rights even if you allow someone else to drive, as long as you didn't do it fraudulently.

If you've been arrested as a tourist, you should protect your rights by hiring an experienced criminal defense lawyer.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.32964712018-05-04T21:42:10Z2018-06-06T01:00:43Z
The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits "excessive bail." Over time, courts have made numerous rulings on what constitutes "excessive," but our country still finds itself in the midst of a bail crisis.

By some estimates, as many as 70 percent of that jail population in the United States are behind bars because they can't afford their bail. We hold more people for this reason than most countries' entire incarcerate rate. Pretrial detention accounts for nearly all of the growth in our jail population. The average bail for a felony charge is about $10,000, but about 44 percent of Americans say they would struggle to come up with $400 in an emergency.

]]>
Keep in mind: These are people who have not been convicted of any crime.

The bail crisis has resulted in some states reconsidering what counts as excessive bail. You may have heard recently about a 64-year-old man in San Francisco who was ordered to pay $350,000 in bail -- an amount he couldn't possibly raise. He was charged with robbery, burglary and elder abuse after allegedly stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne from a neighbor.

His public defender appealed the bail decision and won a landmark victory. Not only did the appeals court find that his bail was unfair and excessive, but it also ruled that judges must consider a defendant's ability to pay when setting bail amounts. In the past, the judges had been using a fixed bail schedule based only on the offense charged and the defendant's criminal history.

In this man's case, an individualized hearing was held in which the defendant's ability to pay was considered, along with non-monetary alternatives to jail. The prosecutor argued that the defendant was a potential danger to the public and that bail should therefore be denied.

The judge ruled in favor of the defendant, but still ordered him to be fitted with an ankle monitor, to undergo drug and alcohol treatment, and to remain in a residential treatment facility around the clock. He will also have to submit to searches by probation officers and has been ordered to stay away from his alleged victim. The conditions for his release still seem harsh, but at least the defendant is in treatment rather than behind bars.

Here in Tennessee, people charged with any crime but murder are entitled to reasonable bail. The defendant's financial condition is one factor judges are expected to consider when setting bail amounts. Nevertheless, we still see bail amounts so high that the defendant cannot possibly afford them. Do you think unaffordable bail is excessive?

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.32964702018-04-23T11:30:00Z2018-06-06T01:00:43Z
Nashville has more than 180 music venues in addition to the venerable Grand Ole Opry House and Ryman Auditorium. The Music City hosts concerts, festivals and events year-round that attract both Tennessee residents and visitors. Unfortunately, visitors to Tennessee sometimes make costly, inconvenient mistakes such as using drugs, driving drunk or breaking the law in other ways.

One common but somewhat embarrassing reason tourists get arrested in Nashville and around Tennessee is public indecency. This is particularly common at big outdoor festivals such as Bonnaroo, where long lines for bathrooms can frustrate some otherwise law-abiding people to use "alternative facilities." There are also instances where people engage in a more sexual form of indecency.

]]>
If you've been arrested for public indecency or its more serious cousin, indecent exposure, don't panic -- and don't allow embarrassment to stop you from contacting an attorney for help. A good criminal defense lawyer won't judge you. Your attorney is on your side and will work to protect your best interests.

Public indecency is essentially defined as appearing nude in public (with genitals, female areolae or even a covered erect penis visible); fondling one's genitals or another's in public; or knowingly engaging in any type of sex, masturbation, flagellation or excretory function for sexual gratification where it can be seen by others.

However, you have a defense to a public indecency charge if you were:

Not in a public place (you were in an enclosed, single-sex bathroom, for example, or a licensed clothing-optional facility)

Relieving yourself in an unincorporated part of Tennessee and were trying to conceal yourself from public view

Breastfeeding

Modeling nude for an art class

Performing nude in a theater production with serious artistic merit

A first or second offense of public indecency is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine. If you've committed a third offense, the charge is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a $1,500 fine and up to 11 months, 29 days in jail.

Public indecency charges are relatively common, if a bit awkward to explain. If you were caught relieving yourself outside, in a state of undress or engaging in a public sex act, a lawyer can help you minimize the negative consequences. And, if you have been arrested for public indecency, a lawyer may be able to get the charges reduced.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.32964692018-04-06T20:33:40Z2018-06-06T01:31:39Z
What is ineffective assistance of counsel in a criminal case? Thanks to the Sixth Amendment and associated court rulings, criminal defendants are entitled to the assistance of counsel -- and that counsel is to be effective. However, the standards for determining when counsel has been constitutionally ineffective are hard to meet.

First, the attorney must have failed to perform a legal duty toward the defendant. That could be, for example, the duty to perform a reasonable investigation of the case, to present favorable witnesses or to introduce any evidence pointing to the defendant's innocence. Second, however, counsel is only considered ineffective if that failure to perform the legal duty can be shown to have impacted the outcome of the trial.

]]>
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has just ruled that Adnan Syed received ineffective counsel eighteen years ago when he was convicted of killing his former girlfriend. The court ordered a new trial for Syed. However, the prosecution may choose to appeal the ruling.

You may know Syed from the first season of the podcast "Serial," which chronicled his case. He was convicted in 2000 of murdering the young woman and burying her in a Baltimore park. He was convicted of murder, kidnapping, robbery and false imprisonment and sentenced to life in prison.

During his trial, however, his attorney did not bring an alibi witness into court. The witness, Asia McClain, apparently would have testified that she saw Syed at a library at the time the prosecution said the murder occurred. Syed's trial attorney did not even contact McClain to investigate her claims.

The majority of the Court of Special Appeals found that Syed's trial counsel had a legal duty to contact and evaluate the alibi witness. Moreover, it found that "there is a reasonable probability that McClain's alibi testimony would have raised a reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror about Syed's involvement."

A single judge dissented, arguing that the trial attorney's failure to contact McClain might have been a strategic decision. The attorney has, unfortunately, died since the trial.

The majority of the court vacated all of Syed's convictions, finding that they were all predicated on the murder conviction. Since there was a reasonable probability that the murder conviction was tainted by ineffective assistance of counsel, Syed should be retried on all counts.

The State's Attorney's Office in Baltimore has 30 days to file an appeal. If it does not appeal, Syed could be retried. However, there are a number of difficulties in retrying a case so old, so the state might choose to offer Syed a plea bargain with a limited sentence -- or even time served.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.32964682018-04-04T17:53:56Z2018-06-06T01:00:43Z
Not all evidence is admissible in a courtroom. Mistakes can be made throughout police investigations, and illegally obtained evidence can be tossed.

In a suppression hearing, a judge will decide if evidence should be suppressed. What kind of evidence is inadmissible and why? Below, we provide an overview of the reasons evidence can be suppressed in a trial.

]]>
Evidence was illegally obtained

Unless officers have a warrant or probable cause to conduct a search, a person does not have to consent to any searches or seizures. If the officers have a warrant to conduct a search, they are not permitted to go beyond the scope of the warrant. For example, if officers have a warrant to search a suspect's home and they also search the car in the driveway, they would have acted outside the warrant's scope. Additionally, a court may suppress evidence that is obtained if a person provided consent under duress or coercion.

The suspect was not informed of their Miranda rights

Law enforcement is legally required to read a person their rights if they are in custody or interrogated. They must be informed of things like their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. If a person is not read their rights or they were read incorrectly, a judge may suppress statements that a suspect elicited following the Miranda error.

Chain of custody mistakes

Evidence that was improperly collected or preserved can be suppressed. The O.J. Simpson trial is a prime example of this type of error. Erroneous evidence collection and preservation procedures led to countless pieces of suppressed evidence. Some of the evidence was labeled incorrectly, completely unlabeled or lacked collection documentation. If a judge has concerns regarding the chain of custody, they may rule that the evidence should be suppressed and omitted from the trial.

There are exceptions to evidence suppression. If evidence falls under an exception, it is possible that it will be admissible in court. Nevertheless, seasoned defense attorneys can fight for evidence to ensure that their clients receive a fair trial and don't fall victim to law enforcement wrongdoings.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.32964672018-03-23T22:24:57Z2018-06-06T01:00:42Z
The National Registry of Exonerations has just released data on the 139 people known to have been exonerated in 2017, along with historical data. This information gives us some insight into why 139 innocent people ended up behind bars, and how they ended up getting freed.

Exonerations are rising due to prosecutors and professional advocates

]]>
According to information from the Registry, at least 33 prosecutors' offices around the country have set up conviction integrity units. Lawyers from these units scrutinize past convictions for evidence of innocence. These units, along with some 52 organizations like the Innocence Project, were responsible for exonerating 80 of the 139 exonerees last year.

The Registry calls particular attention to Harris County, Texas, where a conviction integrity unit has been working to clear a backlog of questionable drug possession cases. The unit exonerated over 40 defendants in 2015 and nearly 50 more in 2016. It exonerated 10 people last year.

"It makes you really wonder what would the feelings on exoneration be, and how many would we see, if there were more of these organizations," noted the Registry's editor.

In 84 of 139 exonerations, official misconduct was involved in the wrongful conviction

In over 60 percent of the cases, some form of official misconduct contributed to the original conviction. Examples included police officers threatening witnesses, falsified tests by analysts, or officials failing to turn over evidence to the defense, as constitutionally required. Prosecutors are legally and ethically bound to tell the defense of any evidence they discover which could serve to show the defendant is not guilty, but far too often, they fail or refuse to do so.

66 of the exonerations involved crimes that didn't happen

In nearly half of the exonerations, the underlying crime didn't even occur. For example, one man was convicted of murdering his own infant son. Evidence now shows it was more likely the child died of a serious medical condition called sepsis. The exonerated man had been on death row.

According to the Registry, exonerations featuring no underlying crime included over a dozen cases of alleged drug possession, 11 false allegations of child abuse, and a total of 9 murder cases.

Overall, these innocent people spent an average of 10.6 years behind bars for crimes they did not commit. The time they lost adds up to 1,478 years.

Whenever we hear about a criminal case, it's crucial to remember that the criminal justice system is far from perfect. Each of us has a responsibility to take "innocent until proven guilty" seriously.

If you or a loved one has been wrongfully convicted, your first step should be to talk to a lawyer with experience in appeals and post-conviction relief.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.32964662018-03-08T20:31:36Z2018-06-06T01:00:42Z
In Tennessee, people who are convicted of DUI after a blood or breath test are required to pay the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations, which performs those tests, a $250 fee. People who are not convicted are not required to pay the fee. The state's Court of Criminal Appeals recently found that to be unconstitutional because it sets up an apparent conflict of interest and calls the trustworthiness of the test results into question.

Over 20 DUI defendants appealed their convictions, claiming that the testing fees give the TBI an incentive to produce positive test results. They made clear that they weren't accusing the TBI of actually falsifying any results. Rather, they claimed it "created the appearance of impropriety and the potential for abuse based upon financial interest." That, they said, violates defendants' due process rights.

]]>
Lawmakers first put a $100 fee in place in 2005, and then raised it to $250 in 2010 at the TBI's urging. Today, the fees bring in over $3 million each year.

In 2014, the director of the TBI argued that the fees were crucial to their operations. If the fee had not been raised in 2010, he said -- and assuming the state did not provide alternative funding sources -- the TBI would have had to eliminate forensic scientist positions or charge local law enforcement for the cost of testing. Again, assuming the state didn't provide any funding, local departments could not afford to pay that cost.

The current fee regime, however, comes at the cost of the TBI's reputation as a neutral provider of valid test results.

As the Court of Criminal Appeals noted, "under the scenario suggested by the State, the defendant is forced to obtain an independent test, to pay for an attorney to defend him, and to hire an expensive expert to challenge the ... result in order to do what an unbiased TBI forensic scientist should have done from the beginning."

The court ruled that lower courts had been in error when they failed to exclude the test results from evidence. That is, potentially, a wide-ranging ruling. If the TBI's test results should be excluded from evidence, many past DUI convictions could be reopened or appealed for lack of sufficient evidence.

It is not yet clear whether prosecutors will appeal the case to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.32964652018-02-22T22:38:52Z2018-06-06T01:32:29Z
The U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of an appeal for a man who styles himself a "constitutional bounty hunter." He pled guilty to a gun possession crime but then sought to appeal the constitutionality of the statute.

Ordinarily, a standard guilty plea agreement altogether waives your right to appeal. In this case, however, a direct constitutional appeal was not specifically among the claims the defendant waived his right to appeal. The Supreme Court says that he may move forward with that type of appeal.

]]>
The case involves a man who is a bit of a celebrity among gun rights activists and constitutional strict constructionists. Rodney Class, a veteran with a North Carolina concealed-carry permit, considers himself a "private attorney general." His mission is to take judges to task when they fail to uphold the constitution, as he sees it. He travels the country -- with weapons -- undertaking to show them the error of their ways.

Class has never threatened a judge with a gun. He simply brings his weapons with him as he intervenes with the judges he sees as failing their duties.

In May 2013, Class traveled to Washington, D.C., in an effort to convince Congress to designate him officially as a "constitutional bounty hunter." From there, he had planned to travel to Pennsylvania to confront a recalcitrant judge.

His adventures came to an end when he parked his Jeep in a Capitol Hill parking lot. A police officer peeked through the windows of the Jeep and noticed a large knife and an empty gun holster. A search of the vehicle revealed multiple knives and three guns.

He was charged with possession of a firearm on U.S. Capitol grounds, a federal crime. He acknowledged that he had indeed done so and pled guilty. The D.C. trial and appellate courts ruled that his guilty plea precluded his ability to appeal. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 6-3 vote.

]]>
tag:ptmaalntn.firmsitepreview.com,2018:/blog//80795.32964642018-02-16T19:40:04Z2018-06-06T01:00:42Z
Nashville is a unique part of the country that has a rich appeal to tourists looking for a fun time exploring the robust music scene, rich history and down-to-earth culture. There are many reasons more and more visitors are crossing state lines to have a good time in the music city. Some of the most popular attractions include the Grand Ole Opry, Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum, Honky Tonk Highway and the historic Music Row, to name a few.

In 2016, approximately 13.9 million tourists came and left the city of Nashville throughout the year. In fact, within a decade, the city known for drawing a large crowd has seen an increase of visitors by 45 percent. With so much magnetism to city attractions, there usually involves lots of drinking and fewer inhibitions that may cost an unknowing visitor legal trouble if not careful.

]]>
Top laws to know when visiting Tennessee

An increase of crowds means city law enforcement and security teams are in charge of maintaining safety and order, while seizing authority over unlawful incidents. The lawsput in place affect individuals who engage in disorderly conduct, public intoxication and driving under the influence as well as other prohibited behavior.

Blocking an area of public access-- Being under the influence of drugs or alcohol can inhibit respectful and courteous behavior, especially when it involves blocking an entrance, sidewalk and street. The law punishes such obstruction with a $200 dollar fine if found guilty.

Disrupting the peace-- Engaging in disorderly conduct, obtrusive behavior and hostile recklessness by means of intoxication or otherwise is banned. Offenses result in a Class C misdemeanor with up to one month in jail and court fines.

There are many great reasons to visit state wide attractions and let loose for a long weekend or short holiday break. The key is to balance a good time while abiding to the rules put forth to protect the public and maintain order. Legal infractions can result in a burden of court summons, fines, potential jail time and more-- all of which turns a good time into a bad one.

What other laws should Tennessee enact to maintain safety in the tourist filled city of Nashville?